DOCSLIB.ORG

Edward Shils 1910-1995

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Edward Shils 1910-1995 Edward Shils 1910-1995 ABSTRACT Key Words: Edward Shils, Michael Polanyi, tradition Michael Polanyi and Edward Shils shared a great many views, and in their long mutual relationship influenced one another. This memorial note examines the relationship and some of the respects in which Shils presented a Polanyian social theory organized around the notion of tradition. Edward Shils, Professor of Sociology and Social Thought at the University of Chicago and longtime fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge died in January of 1995 at the age of 84. Shils was one of the grand intellectual figures of his generation, and he had close personal relations with several of the other grand intellectual figures of his generation, including Michael Polanyi. In what follows, I will concentrate on his relation to Polanyi, which in many ways was formative for his sociological thought. Indeed there is a strong sense in which Shils’ mature thought represents the extension of the central Polanyian themes of the role of faith at the basis of intellectual traditions, the importance of the direct personal initiation of an individual into a tradition, and the idea that “tradition” was a term wrongly appropriated by the Enlightenment to describe superstition and irrationality. Shils also devoted much of his time in his later years to the editing of the journal Minerva, a journal devoted to matters of policy with respect to learning, science, and higher education. Minerva focused on precisely those themes that had been formative for Polanyi himself in the crucible of the struggle against the social relations of science movement in the thirties and forties. Shils’ involvement with these issues and with the Polanyian theme of tradition dates from this period as well. The thought of Polanyi on science itself was deeply engraved in the whole of the massive editorial effort which Shils gave to Minerva. Minerva, founded in 1964, soon became a journal read and admired by a small but influential number of prominent academic and scientific administrators; several such figures were frequently represented on its pages, as were scholars in many areas related to the problem of the history and significance of the present organization of intellectual life, such as historians of philanthropic efforts in support of science and scholarship. Typical themes from Polanyi’s writings in opposition to Bernal and the social relations of science movement, such as the distinction between science and technology, were frequent topics in Minerva. Polanyi wrote an essay in the first issue of Minerva, which in many respects set out the principal themes of the journal over the next twenty years. The essay was one of Polanyi’s best: “The Republic of Science.” It synthesized and updated his writings on science and its governance and, in several ways, strikingly anticipated later work in “science of technology studies” particularly with respect to the networks which check and sustain scientists’ beliefs in their own results. Shils shared these ideas and concerns. But I think that there is a much deeper and more encompassing relationship or engagement with Polanyian themes to be found in Shils, and in what follows I will briefly examine its character, and its historical origins. The atmosphere among intellectuals and especially scientists in the thirties and forties has been written about endlessly. The era was dominated by the highly visible fact of the long economic depression of the thirties which gave new life to the hope of a rational regulation of economic life and encouraged the idea that communism represented the best chance for bringing this about. “Progressive” forces were identified with the Soviet Union and its policies, and the status and merits of the Soviet model, which focused on heavy industry, were widely discussed. J. D. Bernal, the product of a famous British scientific family and member of the intellectual 5 establishment, led a scientists’ movement to create a socially responsible science, organized collectively to serve collective purposes. Only a transformation of science, Bernal argued, could overcome the irrationalities of the present form of organization of society and only a transformed society could fully utilize the benefits that properly organized and productively oriented science could produce. The term of art which was used in progressive circles to describe the rational organization of society was “planning.” Bernal advocated the “planning” of science and the planning of society. Polanyi, of course, opposed both, and his turn toward philosophy arose from this opposition. The notion of planning has not yet found its historian. It was a notion which found favor (both as a way of describing the political tendencies of the day as well as a way of proceding politically among a wide variety of political viewpoints). Many American observers, for example, saw the rise of Nazism, Fascism, Bolshevism, and European Labor Socialism as embodiments of the political idea of planning, and indeed the Nazis, Fascists, and Bolshevists all engaged ostentatiously in planning and for large projects of various kinds. For some socialists, such as Hendrik de Man, planning became a term which defined the movements themselves, and de Man accordingly changed his allegiances from socialism to fascism, which he reasoned would be more able to initiate planning. This movement produced its own countermovement. The war against Hitler produced a great deal of soul searching about what precisely differentiated the enemies of Hitler from Hitler, a problem given a certain specificity by the Hitler-Stalin pact of 1939, which suggested that the difference between Bolshevism and Nazism was primarily tactical and their relation contingent. A great outpouring of writing took place on the common heritage of democracy, drawn in part on a long quiescent body of 19th century ideas about the ancient Germanic roots of Anglo-Saxon freedom and constitutionalism. T.S. Eliot sought to reconsider the Christian roots of culture at the same period, and his writings influenced Shils as well. Sociologists contributed something to this literature, which itself reflected sociological themes of an earlier generation. But during the late forties there was a change in sociology, much of which was the result of a high level of optimism that the field was on the verge of becoming a true science. Shils had a hand in this effort, and indeed for many academic sociologists he is best known for the brief period of his collaboration with the Harvard sociologist Talcott Parsons. But Shils was soon disenchanted with the quest for a scientific sociology. And because he was more attuned to the problem of tradition than his contemporaries, it fell to Shils to say something of importance about it. What he said drew on many sources. Shils became involved with the British war effort and with the interviewing of German soldiers who had been captured, and through this route arrived at conclusions that pointed toward some important insights into the way in which traditions and central values figure in social life. He came to understand that what sociologists call the primary group, the people with whom one has face to face relationships, was the basis of the solidarity of the fighting group. The mutual loyalty of the members of the unit, rather than devotion to Nazi idealogy, was the basis of the effectiveness of the unit. Nevertheless, Nazi ideology had a role. Some member of the primary group was, typically, oriented to the ideology and provided the link of solidarity and commitments which connected devotion to the regime to the devotion of members of the fighting group ([1948] 1975, pp.351-352). Shils came to see that this model applied to tradition generally. Some people are, as he put it, oriented to the center, that is to say, oriented to the core embodiments of a tradition, and these people constitute, so to speak, the spine of society to which others are connected through their face to face relations as ribs are connected, that is to say the spine supports the body with the help of the ribs just as tradition holds together society but largely through the mediation of face to face relationships of loyalty and the like and personal bonds 6 rather than directly through the influence of the tradition on each individual. Shils greatly elaborated this insight about the center of traditions, and similar ideas were developed by such contemporaries as Robert Redfield, anthropologist at the University of Chicago, in this own studies of Mexican villages. But although Shils thought systematically about these topics, he did not write systematically about them, or at least did not write a systematic treatise in which the relation between all of his central ideas were precisely defined. Shils became fascinated with the many ways in which the center of the tradition and indeed various special traditions and local traditions of society were presented and experienced symbolically. In one of his most famous essays, “The Meaning of the Coronation,” Shils and Michael Young examined the ceremony of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth and the complex ways in which the English responded to it. His point was that the symbolic representation of the central political and religious institutions of the society as represented in the coronation ritual itself evokes a response even from those who oppose these institutions which choose the remarkable extent to which they recognize and respect this centrality ([1956] 1975, pp. 135-152). Shils saw also that the antinomianism and antiestablishment attitudes of intellectuals derived from an even more complex relation to central institutions: they treated the ideals of the center, to which they were especially attuned, as standards against which they could hold the actual conduct of the central institutions and their representatives, and found them wanting (1972, especially pp. 3-22). For an audience familiar with Polanyi, I need hardly point out the connections with Polanyi’s own thought.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TRANSLATING WEBER Keith Tribe1 Max Weber Became A
    TRANSLATING WEBER Keith Tribe1 It [“Class and Status”] has never been published in English and is not included in part one of W und G, which Parsons of Harvard has translated and is now in English press. The son of a bitch translated it so as to take all the guts, the radical guts, out of it, whereas our translation doesn’t do that!2 After all, one could ‘translate’ W into New Republic style, or even New Yorker style (has not Mr. Lasswell done so?), but we should honour neither Weber nor ourselves by doing it that way. I like it a little clumsy here and there. Maybe W. didn’t etch so much as block out in charcoal; and in any event it looks better in English if one doesn’t use too fine an acid.3 Max Weber became a “founding father of sociology” in the 1940s, with the publication in English of three books: Gerth and Mills’ From Max Weber (1946); Talcott Parsons’ Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1947); and Edward Shils and Henry Finch’s Methodology of the Social Sciences (1949). These writings provided a foundation upon which the post-war social sciences were constructed around the action frame of reference and “value-freedom.” The idea that this canonical reputation is a posthu- mous construct has been broadly accepted since the 1980s; there is how- ever no detailed discussion of the reception process that might turn this proposition into a narrative possessing nuance and depth.4 The origin of this process is nonetheless clear: during the later 1940s American social 1 This essay draws upon, and elaborates, arguments developed elsewhere: “Translator’s Appendix to Wilhelm Hennis, Max Weber’s Science of Man (Newbury: Threshold Press, 2000), 205–16; “Max Weber’s ‘Conceptual Preface’ to General Economic History: Introduc- tion and Translation,” Max Weber Studies Beiheft I (2006): 11–38; and “Talcott Parsons as Translator of Max Weber’s Basic Sociological Categories,” History of European Ideas 33 (2007): 212–33.
    [Show full text]
  • The Disease of the Transition: Global Populism- Scholarship and Its Roots in American Modernization Theory
    PSA – Panel: ‘Theorizing Populism’, Yannis Stavrakakis – 12 April 2017 Anton Jäger (University of Cambridge) The Disease of the Transition: Global Populism- scholarship and Its Roots in American Modernization Theory ABSTRACT: Few concepts exert more contemporary appeal than ‘populism’. Despite its dizzyingly large connotational field, its definitional elusiveness, and its normative duplicity, one point of convergence stands out for contemporary commentators: that ours is an age of ‘populist politics’. In attempting to grasp populism’s conceptual slipperiness, this paper will use a strictly contextualist method in investigating how certain uses of the word ‘populism’, mostly in academic milieus, came to define contemporary understandings. It will do so by reference to one of the most celebrated treatments of the topic in recent academic history – Jan-Werner Müller’s What is Populism? (2016) – showing how Müller’s primary conceptual axis, which posits ‘populism’ and ‘pluralism’ as oppositional political poles, derives its historical roots from American modernization theory. In the 1950s and 1960s, American political scientists such as Richard Hofstadter, Seymour Martin Lipset, and Daniel Bell first formulated this form of dichotomy in both historiographical and sociological work. Most of these political scientists harboured a strong resentment towards indigenous traditions of American populism, and their epochal work on ‘populism’ in the 1950s, as I will argue, still presents us with the matrix through which later elaborations of the concept are to be understood. * On the 14th of March 1956, a group of researchers gathered in one of the main conference halls of New York’s Columbia University. The group could pride itself on a rather eclectic membership.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Shils and the Intellectuals
    The calling of social thought Rediscovering the work of Edward Schils Edited by Christopher Adair-Toteff and Stephen Turner Manchester University Press Copyright © Manchester University Press 2019 While copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in Manchester University Press, copyright in individual chapters belongs to their respective authors, and no chapter may be reproduced wholly or in part without the express permission in writing of both author and publisher. Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 5261 2005 2 hardback First published 2019 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Typeset by Toppan Best-set Premedia Limited Printed in Great Britain by •• Contents List of contributors ix Introduction: discovering and rediscovering Shils 1 Stephen P. Turner 1 The philosophical anthropology of Edward Shils 32 Steven Grosby 2 The sociologist as human scientist: the meaning of Shils 47 Thomas Schneider 3 The recovery of tradition 61 Lenore T. Ealy 4 Edward Shils and Michael Polanyi: the terms of engagement 79 Phil Mullins 5 Shils, Mannheim, and ideology 106 Christopher Adair-Toteff 6 Shils and Oakeshott 123 Efraim Podosik 7 Edward Shils on pluralism and civility 140 Richard Boyd 8 Nations, nationality, and civil society in the work of Edward Shils 154 Peter Mentzel 9 Shils and the intellectuals 171 Jeff Pooley 10 Edward Shils and his Portraits 191 Bryan S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tradition: Why Shils and Polanyi Abandoned the Action Frame of Reference1 Richard W
    Tradition: Why Shils and Polanyi Abandoned the Action Frame of Reference1 Richard W. Moodey Key words: Michael Polanyi, Edward Shils, Karl Mannheim, Talcott Parsons, Action Frame of Reference, tradition, religion, science, liberal democracy, ideology, primordial ties. ABSTRACT Michael Polanyi began thinking and writing about tradition long before he met Edward Shils in 1946. Polanyi’s religious experience in 1913 became part of the background for his thinking about tradition, and tradition entered into his thinking about spontaneous order and moral inversion. Polanyi and Shils both knew Karl Mannheim before they met one another, and had similar criticisms of Mannheim’s sociology. Soon after they met, both Polanyi and Shils were briefly enthusiastic about the Action Frame of Reference, which Shils helped create. Neither of them used the Action Frame of Reference in their later work. One of the reasons was its neglect of tradition, and another was that is was simply too complex to be a useful conceptual tool. Polanyi’s thinking about tradition did not change much after Personal Knowledge, but Shils continued to modify his thinking about tradition until the final years of his life. Introduction Michael Polanyi emphasized tradition in science, but he also asserted the importance of tradition in other domains of activity. In the words of Struan Jacobs, Polanyi regarded a good tradition as a “fiduciary object, evoking a passionate, moral dedication.”2 Polanyi’s friend, Edward Shils, taught seminars on tradition for twenty-five years, beginning in 1956. In 1981, he brought together the results of those seminars in Tradition.3 But his thinking about tradition continued to develop.
    [Show full text]
  • John Fiske and the Spatialization of Tradition
    The Empire of the Dead and the Empire of the Living: John Fiske and the Spatialization of Tradition Michael D. Clark With a wary condescension to Yankee bumptiousness, the British historian William Stubbs once suggested that a codification of manorial customs might serve to demonstrate the continuity of English local institutions from the earliest times, to last until our American cousins have annexed us; and possibly longer still, for those cousins, even more than most of our own countrymen, show a very lively interest in everything, legal, customary, or historical, that illustrates the cradle of the race, out of which evolution is going to produce the ideal man.l This melange of imperial hubris, scientifically gilded idealism, and retrospective curiosity is as familiar among Stubbs's late nineteenth-century American con­ temporaries as the irony with which the Englishman treated it. It was served up most systematically and appealingly, perhaps, by the New England philosopher and historian John Fiske (1842-1901). But Fiske offered more than an odd conjunction of high-minded and self-serving ideas. Fiske was a "popularizer," as his leading biographer describes him, who drew on more original thinkers to fashion an account of history as evolutionary progress. Standard treatments have emphasized the conservative outcome of this project: beginning as a rebel against religious orthodoxy, Fiske ended by constructing a defense of orthodox values based on Spencerian and Darwinian precepts.2 But I propose to show that Fiske can also be considered the other way 0026-3079/97/3803-091$2.00/0 American Studies, 38:3, (Fall 1997): 91-106 91 92 Michael D.
    [Show full text]
  • An Accident of Memory: Edward Shils, Paul Lazarsfeld and the History of American Mass Communication Research
    AN ACCIDENT OF MEMORY EDWARD SHILS, PAUL LAZARSFELD AND THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN MASS COMMUNICATION RESEARCH Jefferson D. Pooley Submitted in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2006 © 2006 Jefferson D. Pooley All Rights Reserved Abstract An Accident of Memory: Edward Shils, Paul Lazarsfeld and the History of American Mass Communication Research The main memory of American mass communication research holds that scholars around Paul F. Lazarsfeld, in the years during and after World War II, dispelled the conventional wisdom that media marinate the defenseless American mind. According to the story, a loose and undisciplined body of pre-war thought had concluded naively that media are powerful—a myth punctured by the rigorous studies of Lazarsfeld and others, which showed time and again that media impact is in fact limited. This storyline, first narrated in Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld’s Personal Influence (1955), remains textbook boilerplate and literature review dogma fifty years later. The dissertation traces the emergence of this “powerful-to-limited effects” disciplinary legend, with special emphasis on the surprising contributions of sociologist Edward Shils, the mandarin theorist and intellectual maverick with little interest in the empirical study of media. In the crucial postwar years, Shils provided an account of the disappearance and reemergence of “small group” research, which he framed as a contrast between pictures of society—between the mistaken European view of impersonal isolation as against his view, that Gemeinschaft elements endure. Shils’s treatment of small-group research, and especially his embedding of that story in terms of societal imagery, was essential to the field’s mnemonic emplotment.
    [Show full text]
  • Shils and the Intellectuals
    Shils and the Intellectuals Jefferson D. Pooley Muhlenberg College [email protected] jeffpooley.com This is a post-peer-review version of the chapter. The final authenticated version is available online at https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526120069.00014. Jefferson Pooley. “Shils and the Intellectuals.” In The Calling of Social Thought: Rediscovering the Work of Edward Shils, edited by Christopher Adair-Toteff and Stephen Turner, 171–190. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526120069.00014 Shils and the Intellectuals Jefferson Pooley, Muhlenberg College, [email protected] doi Introduction No topic so consistently preoccupied Edward Shils, at every stage of his career, as the intellectual. Most of his reflections con- cerned the intellectual’s fraught relationship with the societies that harbour them. This chapter traces Edward Shils’ distinctive con- ception of the intellectual—as indispensable to, but all too often an opponent of, social order. During his undergraduate years in the late 1920s, Shils had already become fascinated with, and repulsed by, the tendency that he observed among intellectuals to despise their own societies. His aversion to intellectual disloyalty was a constant throughout his adult life, though his specifically ‘Shilsian’ take on the intellectual and his society would only cohere, in a sophisticated, original, and consistent way, in the 1950s. This chapter reconstructs Shils’ encounter with the downcast intel- lectual, first as a precocious reader of Gustave Flaubert, Hippolyte Taine, Hendrik de Man, Robert Michels, and, above all, Georges Sorel. It was Sorel’s chiliastic politics of heroic violence which, in its purist clarity, helped disclose the transcendent moral impulse that, to varying degrees, leads intellectuals to judge their societies harshly.
    [Show full text]
  • The May Fourth Movement and New Confucianism: a Fusion of Cultural Conservatism and Political Progressivism
    The May Fourth Movement and New Confucianism: A Fusion of Cultural Conservatism and Political Progressivism Roy Tseng, Research Fellow, The Center for Political Thought, RCHSS, Academia Sinica, Taiwan [email protected] Preface It is true that the leading New Confucians, including Mou Zongsan (牟宗三 1909-1995), Tang Junyi (唐君毅 1909-1978) and Xu Fuguan (徐復觀 1904-1982), have been widely labeled as conservatives in a negative sense. In this study I contend that a significant but often overlooked aspect of the political philosophy of New Confucianism is to wield a fusion of cultural conservatism and political progressivism, with the purpose of reuniting the habitual practices of “Confucian civility” with the progressive values of liberal democracy. In short, my view is that a comprehensive study of the concept of “civility” may not only help explain away some of the misconceptions about the limited reception of modernity and liberal values in the writings of Westernized liberalism, but also, and for this reason, open the door to rebuild what I call “Confucian liberalism” from a “civil” perspective. More precisely, in light of the ideological debate regarding cultural encounter, “Confucian liberalism” is conceived in objection to the two extreme poles identified as the Western-centric and the Sino-centric, or anti-Confucian liberalism (i.e., Westernized liberalism) and anti-liberal Confucianism (i.e., traditionalist Confucianism), still hovering over Chinese political discourse. Indeed, in the realm of Chinese political discussion,
    [Show full text]
  • Shils and the Intellectuals
    Shils and the Intellectuals Jefferson D. Pooley Muhlenberg College [email protected] jeffpooley.com This is a post-peer-review version of the chapter. The final authenticated version is available online at https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526120069.00014. Jefferson Pooley. “Shils and the Intellectuals.” In The Calling of Social Thought: Rediscovering the Work of Edward Shils, edited by Christopher Adair-Toteff and Stephen Turner, 171–190. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526120069.00014 Shils and the Intellectuals Jefferson Pooley, Muhlenberg College, [email protected] doi Introduction No topic so consistently preoccupied Edward Shils, at every stage of his career, as the intellectual. Most of his reflections con- cerned the intellectual’s fraught relationship with the societies that harbour them. This chapter traces Edward Shils’ distinctive con- ception of the intellectual—as indispensable to, but all too often an opponent of, social order. During his undergraduate years in the late 1920s, Shils had already become fascinated with, and repulsed by, the tendency that he observed among intellectuals to despise their own societies. His aversion to intellectual disloyalty was a constant throughout his adult life, though his specifically ‘Shilsian’ take on the intellectual and his society would only cohere, in a sophisticated, original, and consistent way, in the 1950s. This chapter reconstructs Shils’ encounter with the downcast intel- lectual, first as a precocious reader of Gustave Flaubert, Hippolyte Taine, Hendrik de Man, Robert Michels, and, above all, Georges Sorel. It was Sorel’s chiliastic politics of heroic violence which, in its purist clarity, helped disclose the transcendent moral impulse that, to varying degrees, leads intellectuals to judge their societies harshly.
    [Show full text]
  • Edward Shils Christine C
    Wayne State University School of Library and Information Science Faculty School of Library and Information Science Research Publications 9-1-1997 Bibliography of the Published Works of Professor Edward Shils Christine C. Schnusenberg Gordon B. Neavill Wayne State University, [email protected] Recommended Citation Schnusenberg, C. C. & Neavill, G. B. (1997). Bibliography of the published works of professor Edward Shils. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Edward Shils, The Order of Learning: Essays on the Contemporary University (341-367). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/slisfrp/59 This Bibliography is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Library and Information Science at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in School of Library and Information Science Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. THE ORDEROF LEARNING Essays on the Contemporary University EDWARD SHILS Edited with an introduction by Philip G. Altbach Transaction Publishers •New Brunswick (U.S.A.) and London (U.K.) Copyright © 1997 by Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903. Bibliography of the Published Works of Edward Shils © Christine C. Schnusenberg and Gordon B. Neavill. All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conven­ tions. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any infOlIDation storage and retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. All inquiries should be addressed to Transaction Publishers, Rutgers-The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903. This book is printed on acid-Iree paper that meets the American National Standard [or Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Hoover Institution
    The National Endowment for the Humanities and the Hoover Institution. Stanford University, request the honor of your presence at the 22nd Annual Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities 'History, Humanity and Truth” Robert Conquest Senior Research Fellow. Reception to follow Hoover Institution Stauffer Auditorium, Hoover Institution Wednesday. May 12.1993 RSVP 415/723-2071 Lecture 7:30 p.m. or return enclosed card Kresge Auditorium, Stanford University Request for Tickets I 1993 Jefferson Lecture Wednesday, May 5,1993 Washington, D.C. Name Last First Initial SJ Street Address City State Zip Telephone Daytime Evening Number of tickets___________ (limit two per request) Tickets will be issued in order of receipt of request. Please reply by mail by Wednesday, April 21,1993. National Endowment for the Humanities 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20506 The National Endowment for the Humanities presents the Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities East Coast Program National Endowment for the Humanities Washington, D.C. Wednesday, May 5,1993 West Coast Program Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, California Wednesday, May 12,1993 East Coast Program West Coast Program National Endowment Hoover Institution for the Humanities Stanford University Welcome and Remarks Welcome Donald D. Gibson Ewart A. C. Thomas Acting Chairman Dean, School of Humanities and Sciences National Endowment Stanford University for the Humanities Opening Remarks Donald D. Gibson Introduction Acting Chairman Edwin J. Delattre National Endowment Olin Scholar
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Saul Bellow Papers 1926-2015
    University of Chicago Library Guide to the Saul Bellow Papers 1926-2015 © 2016 University of Chicago Library Table of Contents Acknowledgments 3 Descriptive Summary 3 Information on Use 3 Access 3 Restrictions on Use 4 Citation 4 Biographical Note 4 Scope Note 6 Related Resources 10 Subject Headings 11 INVENTORY 12 Series I: Personal Ephemera 12 Series II: Correspondence 19 Series III: Writings 231 Subseries 1: Public Speaking Engagements 231 Subseries 2: Essays and Articles 240 Subseries 3: Short Fiction and Poetry 250 Subseries 4: Plays 261 Subseries 5: Books 274 Subseries 6: Miscellaneous Notes and Fragments 380 Series IV: Writings by Others 388 Series V: Writings About Saul Bellow 416 Series VI: Teaching 426 Series VII: Honors and Awards 428 Series VIII: Audiovisual 429 Subseries 1: Photographs 430 Subseries 2: Audio Recordings 434 Series IX: Oversize 434 Series X: Restricted 439 Descriptive Summary Identifier ICU.SPCL.BELLOWS Title Bellow, Saul. Papers Date 1926-2015 Size 142.25 linear feet (256 boxes) Repository Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library 1100 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 U.S.A. Abstract Saul Bellow (1915-2005) was a writer, educator, and Nobel laureate. Born in Lachine, Quebec and raised in Chicago from the age of nine, Bellow studied at the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He taught in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago from 1962 to 1993, and at Boston University from 1993 until his death. Bellow was the recipient of many awards including the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer Prize, the National Medal of Arts, and the National Book Award for Fiction.
    [Show full text]